tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33960805.post116855460379454317..comments2017-08-29T02:01:52.741-07:00Comments on Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look: The Actonel Saga ContinuesCL Psychhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13990549972520745769noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33960805.post-1168595753887047922007-01-12T01:55:00.000-08:002007-01-12T01:55:00.000-08:00I think it's one thing for an academic to conduct ...I think it's one thing for an academic to conduct studies and not disclose the information. If I was an academic physician, I'd have no problem investigating whether a product helped patients with a particular ailment, and no problem not disclosing that I hadn't found any benefit. After all, in a perfect world, pharma companies would try and identify everyone who would benefit from their products.<BR/><BR/>Graham Emslie, however, has done something entirely different. He's found that a <I>product</I> is pretty much useless, and then gone on to affix his name to findings that oblige the taxpayer to purchase these (sometimes useless) products.<BR/><BR/>There were compelling legal reasons why he couldn't disclose proprietary information. There also were <B>compelling ethical reasons</B> why he should never have lent his now tarnished name to findings that he <B>knew to be flawed.</B> This smells much less of a Come to Jesus Epiphany than of a modified limited hangout.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it is touching to see that not only monkeys stand by their organ grinders. (Pun intended.)<BR/><BR/>http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-09-20-ahrp.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com